Israel threatens, fires over german ship

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: RichardE


Overall letting Germany anywhere near this was a mistake.

It's not like we asked for the job.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna
That's right -- carry on with your assertions that you are correct, and that the burden of proof is on those who do not hold the same opinion as you.

The number of UN resolutions shows how obsessed that institution is with Israel, or, I should say, how much it is in the hands of the Arab states, as they can push their agenda quite easily. All the resolutions passed in regards to Israel have done nothing more than to denigrate the UN, and make it look like no more than rubber stamp; no wonder it is considered a lame duck nowadays.

I'm not offended when being called an apologist -- it only demonstrate that the person making the claim has nothing of substance to say.
Funny you should feel like you've been accused of supporting terrorism, just by your own impression that I have been offended; don't project your insecurities on me.

A vastly superior recon & targeting ability does not mean you can carry out an operation with little colateral damage -- not when the terrorists are hiding in the middle of a city that's full people with AK-47s. If you let a terrorist stay in your house, then any family memeber in that house is your responsibility, or as the recent conflict showed us: if you let Hezbollah park their truck next to your house, don't be surprised that you wake up the next morning without a house.

Perhaps you are unaware of what 'apologist' means. If you did know, you would understand why I said 'rightly or wrongly'.

Now, I agree that logically, stating that anyone who supports terrorism will agree with a specific part of my position does not mean the opposite is true, but the implication in your statement was that I support terrorism, which is not true. As far as collateral damage goes, your argument begs the question by redefining that collateral damage as implicitly supporting terrorism in the first place, rendering any sort of restraint superfluous.

As far as assertions, and the UN go, the burden of proof does rest on you; any other nation would be condemned for what Israel does.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Perhaps you are unaware of what 'apologist' means. If you did know, you would understand why I said 'rightly or wrongly'.

"probably", "usually", "rightly or wrongly" -- could you have been more ambiguous?

...but the implication in your statement was that I support terrorism

Which statement was that?

As far as assertions, and the UN go, the burden of proof does rest on you; any other nation would be condemned for what Israel does.

Even though I don't agree with your logic, I'll give you an example so I won't have to hear you talking about the UN any more.

Event: Hama Massacre in Syria. (1, 2)
UN Resolutions: 0

An interesting read:

The hypocrisy of the UN is clearly seen in its failure to censure radical Muslim nations such as Syria, when 20,000 of its citizens were slaughtered at Hama in 1982, or when, contrary to the first Geneva Convention, Egypt in 1966, and Iraq in 1988, both used poison gas.

There has been much discussion in the UN and among the nations of the world in regard to UN resolutions 242 and 338. These resolutions were passed by the UN immediately after Israel's wars of 1967 and 1973. Both have to do with establishing secure borders. There is hardly a border on earth that has not been established in some way by war. Traditionally, the loser aggressor nations have to pay a big price in territory lost for their aggression. That is true in every place on earth except in Israel. In Israel, due to UN and world pressures, the aggressors are usually rewarded and Israel is forced to surrender territory won in order that aggressors may live to fight another day.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Perhaps you are unaware of what 'apologist' means. If you did know, you would understand why I said 'rightly or wrongly'.

"probably", "usually", "rightly or wrongly" -- could you have been more ambiguous?

I could have been ambiguous, but I was not. You are an Israel apologist, regardless of whether that makes you 'right' or 'wrong' with respect to your opinion of Israel.

...but the implication in your statement was that I support terrorism

Which statement was that?

How very coy. The statement where you directly lifted my words and then associated them with the expected position of terrorist sympathizers.

As far as assertions, and the UN go, the burden of proof does rest on you; any other nation would be condemned for what Israel does.

Even though I don't agree with your logic, I'll give you an example so I won't have to hear you talking about the UN any more.

Event: Hama Massacre in Syria. (1, 2)
UN Resolutions: 0

An interesting read:

The hypocrisy of the UN is clearly seen in its failure to censure radical Muslim nations such as Syria, when 20,000 of its citizens were slaughtered at Hama in 1982, or when, contrary to the first Geneva Convention, Egypt in 1966, and Iraq in 1988, both used poison gas.

There has been much discussion in the UN and among the nations of the world in regard to UN resolutions 242 and 338. These resolutions were passed by the UN immediately after Israel's wars of 1967 and 1973. Both have to do with establishing secure borders. There is hardly a border on earth that has not been established in some way by war. Traditionally, the loser aggressor nations have to pay a big price in territory lost for their aggression. That is true in every place on earth except in Israel. In Israel, due to UN and world pressures, the aggressors are usually rewarded and Israel is forced to surrender territory won in order that aggressors may live to fight another day.

The UN has certainly stood by and watched a number of atrocities, I won't argue with that.

Modern nations do not tend to shift borders due to war; what territory did Germany lose after the second world war, for example? It's not Israel's fault that Israel exists, but the massive instability in the region since Israel's creation was pretty predictable.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I could have been ambiguous, but I was not. You are an Israel apologist, regardless of whether that makes you 'right' or 'wrong' with respect to your opinion of Israel.

So, the cat's finally out of the bag.....

Your statemet was ambiguous, and intentionally vague; nevertheless, your implications were there: i.e. Israel must be doing something wrong for getting all the attention from the UN. I'll await for your example as how this is correct, but I won't hold my breath, since according to your twisted logic, you are "obviously" correct, and others have to prove you wrong.

How very coy. The statement where you directly lifted my words and then associated them with the expected position of terrorist sympathizers.

Well then, cut and paste the statment, because as far as I cant tell you're just playing the victim card, while calling me an apologist.

Modern nations do not tend to shift borders due to war; what territory did Germany lose after the second world war, for example?

Ehmmm........

• Germany was broken up and occupied by the USSR and allied forces
• Japan was occupied by Allied forces

Even though the occupied terroritories were not held in the long run (with the exception of East Germany), it was the occupiers' choice as to what will be done, and the occupied countries had no control -- they lost sovreignty for some time, until it was retruned to them.

It's not Israel's fault that Israel exists, but the massive instability in the region since Israel's creation was pretty predictable.

Huh? Where did this come from and how is it related to what were talking about?
I presume that this statment is not ambiguous either, right?

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie


Modern nations do not tend to shift borders due to war; what territory did Germany lose after the second world war, for example? It's not Israel's fault that Israel exists, but the massive instability in the region since Israel's creation was pretty predictable.

You dont know much do you?

Germany before WW1

Germany after WW1

Germany now

 

[RichardE]

It's not Israel's fault that Israel exists, but the massive instability in the region since Israel's creation was pretty predictable.

If it was predictable it is because of the Muslims ambition to destroy Christians and Jewish people. At the time of its creation, the territory belonged to Britain (to a point). As it owned the territory it could decide what to do with it. There we have the creation of Israel (which has existed before). The pact that was offered to both sides would have given peace, but the Muslims rejected it. The aggressor in these conflicts have been the Muslims and the Arabs. Every major war has been because they seek out the destruction of Israel.

Again, if the Arabs laid down there arms there would be peace. If Israel laid down her arms she would be destroyed.

You can try to turn this around anyway you want, but in the end it breaks down to this statement. Not everything that Israel has done is right, but again, it breaks down to this statement. Whether you like to admit it or not, Israel is still fighting for its existence. If it demilitarized tomorrow by next week it would be under attack, that is a plain and simple and obvious statement.

The only predictable thing about Israel's creation is a country was going to be created. It only became predictable that there would be problems when the Arabs rejected the terms the British gave. So again, it comes back to the Arabs causing issues.

Now you have 3 or 4 generations of people. People who are poor, uneducated, hopeless and most of all, young. (Median age in the Gaza strip is around 15). They are all born and than planted with the victim mindset of "If only the Jews were not here everything would be better" (Of course this is bullshit, as we have seen with the return of the Gaza strip, they have done nothing with it besides launch more attacks)

We have seen that before, Nazism and Hitler. The Arab nation mentality and Nazism are one and the same.

So as we did than, and we will do now, we will step up and defend the Jewish people against the new Nazism. In exchange we get Israel, which has done more to contribute to our society than the Arab nations has done recently (besides oil).

If the arabs want to be treated differently, they need to grow up and join civilization. If it wasn't for the bleeding heart Europeans they would have been taken care of by now.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I could have been ambiguous, but I was not. You are an Israel apologist, regardless of whether that makes you 'right' or 'wrong' with respect to your opinion of Israel.

So, the cat's finally out of the bag.....

Your statemet was ambiguous, and intentionally vague; nevertheless, your implications were there: i.e. Israel must be doing something wrong for getting all the attention from the UN. I'll await for your example as how this is correct, but I won't hold my breath, since according to your twisted logic, you are "obviously" correct, and others have to prove you wrong.

You are either very slow, too lazy to look up a definition that you don't know, or being intentionally obtuse. I know which one I think it is, and it isn't 'stupid'.

apologist, vindicator, justifier (a person who argues to defend or justify some policy or institution) "an apologist for capital punishment"

As you can see, the word contains no value judgement, but is in fact quite descriptive of what you are doing, not why.

How very coy. The statement where you directly lifted my words and then associated them with the expected position of terrorist sympathizers.

Well then, cut and paste the statment, because as far as I cant tell you're just playing the victim card, while calling me an apologist.

I said:

"Israel's methods of retaliation for terrorism have killed many times more then terrorist attacks have done, and even at that are highly ineffective; this makes them appear nothing better than vindictive and vengeful."

You replied:

"Any reprisal to a terrorist attack will be preceived as vindictive and vengful by those who support terrorism."

Then I called you on that, and you made me spell it out for you once already; now I've done it for you again. Perhaps you 'll bother to read the whole post this time and won't have to ask again.

Modern nations do not tend to shift borders due to war; what territory did Germany lose after the second world war, for example?

Ehmmm........

• Germany was broken up and occupied by the USSR and allied forces
• Japan was occupied by Allied forces

Even though the occupied terroritories were not held in the long run (with the exception of East Germany), it was the occupiers' choice as to what will be done, and the occupied countries had no control -- they lost sovreignty for some time, until it was retruned to them.

But it was returned, and that has been the norm for close to a century. Perhaps as a result of our incredible capacity to destroy things wars of conquest are for the most part no longer perceived as acceptable.

I'll accept that my position here was overly simplified in that 'Germany' was still 'Germany' but was indeed occupied for a significant period of time; the 'East Germany' part is irrelevant to the present argument, having had more to do with the cold war and communism than norms of international behaviour.

It's not Israel's fault that Israel exists, but the massive instability in the region since Israel's creation was pretty predictable.

Huh? Where did this come from and how is it related to what were talking about?
I presume that this statment is not ambiguous either, right?[/quote]
It isn't ambiguous at all, and it relates directly to why there is conflict between Israel and its neighbor's in the first place. Many Israel apologists like to gloss over the fact that people were made to leave what is now Israel within living memory, and that the nation was carved out of the middle east over the objections of its previous residents. Conflict was basically inevitable.

 

[imported_dna]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
As you can see, the word contains no value judgement, but is in fact quite descriptive of what you are doing, not why.

I'm familiar with the dictionary definition of the word, but the way it is used (especially in these forums) is to label someone as making excuses.

Lookup "Liberal" and "Conservative" -- they've also become a sort of dirty words.

Then I called you on that, and you made me spell it out for you once already; now I've done it for you again. Perhaps you 'll bother to read the whole post this time and won't have to ask again.

I was talking about the population that provides the support for terrorists. Just because I recycled your adjectives doesn't mean I labeled you as a terrorist supporter.

But it was returned, and that has been the norm for close to a century. Perhaps as a result of our incredible capacity to destroy things wars of conquest are for the most part no longer perceived as acceptable.

Making assertions again, huh?
In case you haven't seen the maps that B00ne linked to, it has not been the case for more than a century. Anyway, I'm sure the reason why the UK pulled out of the ME had more to do with money, than with the desire to do the "right thing". If they still had financial backing, and were not squeemish about using force, they would still be in control.

So, do you still stand by your assertion that the UN isn't obsessed with Israel?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dna

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
As you can see, the word contains no value judgement, but is in fact quite descriptive of what you are doing, not why.

I'm familiar with the dictionary definition of the word, but the way it is used (especially in these forums) is to label someone as making excuses.

Lookup "Liberal" and "Conservative" -- they've also become a sort of dirty words.

Then why did I have to appeal to the definition of the word twice, and then copy it out for you, before you stoppd whining about it?

Then I called you on that, and you made me spell it out for you once already; now I've done it for you again. Perhaps you 'll bother to read the whole post this time and won't have to ask again.

I was talking about the population that provides the support for terrorists. Just because I recycled your adjectives doesn't mean I labeled you as a terrorist supporter.

That's just it; you copied a pair of adjectives that provided a certain implication; I've already rather exhaustively spelled out what that implication is logically speaking, and how it might be interpreted. You're being quite obtuse about this, but 'pretend you don't understand, and blame the other person' seems to pass for argumentation more often than it should.

But it was returned, and that has been the norm for close to a century. Perhaps as a result of our incredible capacity to destroy things wars of conquest are for the most part no longer perceived as acceptable.

Making assertions again, huh?
In case you haven't seen the maps that B00ne linked to, it has not been the case for more than a century. Anyway, I'm sure the reason why the UK pulled out of the ME had more to do with money, than with the desire to do the "right thing". If they still had financial backing, and were not squeemish about using force, they would still be in control.

So, do you still stand by your assertion that the UN isn't obsessed with Israel?[/quote]

Yes.